I hate Traps

[TheCrowing1432]

Oh how I loathe traps. They are one of the cornerstones of DND and yet are one of the worst parts of the game.

Why do I think that?

Because of the lack of interactivity with them.


All the other aspects of DND have multiple ways to do, combat, social aspects, magic and so on. There are multiple classes and multiple ways to do them.

Not traps.

Theres only a small handful of classes that can even find them (Scout, Rogue, Ninja, Beguiler, maybe some more?) and what do you do?

"Roll a d20"

Thats it.

Now dont get me wrong, in DND everything is dictated by a d20, but traps have no choice at all. Its either a pass or fail interaction that doesnt lend itself to any sort of choice.

Does anyone else have similar feelings?

[Big Fau]

Does anyone else have similar feelings?

Did you know that summons, Unseen Servants pushing rocks, and adamantine daggers can bypass most traps?

[eggynack]

They're pretty boring, and annoyingly solo oriented. Use encounter traps from dungeonscape instead, if you haven't already, if you seek to make things more interesting.

[Arutema]

They also lead to a bit of circular reasoning in class/dungeon/party design.

You have to have traps in your dungeon so the rogue has time to shine.

You have to have a rogue in the party because there are probably traps in the dungeon.

You can't give trapfinding to other classes because it will take the rogue's special snowflake status.

End result: "Someone has to play a rogue."

So yes, loathe them.

[illyahr]

Hey, now. Necromancers can disarm traps, too, you know. :smallwink:

[Beheld]

This is a pretty good overview of both the problems with traps as usually implemented, and ways to use traps that beat those problems.

https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Constructanomicon#Traps

[inuyasha]

I think it's important that you're creative with the traps you use. Traps should be an alternative to monsters that should be surprising and a little scary. For instance, pit traps no longer really scare anyone, sure they suck, sure they do some damage, but they're really cliche. Spicing up pit traps with spikes is really overdone too, so maybe you can change that to something else...

My players were really terrified when they fell down a 20 foot drop and had burning lamp oil rained on top of them for the next few rounds, that was certainly fun.

[Gallowglass]

Oh how I loathe traps...
All the other aspects of DND have multiple ways to do, combat, social aspects, magic and so on. There are multiple classes and multiple ways to do them.

Not traps.

Hey now, If you haven't been able to talk your way past the traps yet, that just means your diplomacy isn't high enough yet. You gotta max that **** out.

Then you gotta get in there and RO-mance those traps. Really get to know them, you know. Get in there, compliment them, drop a couple innuendos, cozy up and BAM you got yourself a red-hot trap mama.

Aint no love like pit-trap love, yo.

[Psyren]

Can someone link to that one blog post that describes how to do D&D traps better? i.e. they should be a puzzle for the group rather than an HP tax or solo encounter for the rogue.

[Sliver]

As eggynack mentioned, Dungeonscape has encounter traps. They offer more variety and interaction with traps, presenting solutions for what non-rogues can do.

[ryu]

Hey now, If you haven't been able to talk your way past the traps yet, that just means your diplomacy isn't high enough yet. You gotta max that **** out.

Then you gotta get in there and RO-mance those traps. Really get to know them, you know. Get in there, compliment them, drop a couple innuendos, cozy up and BAM you got yourself a red-hot trap mama.

Aint no love like pit-trap love, yo.

You joke, but it is actually entirely possible to use diplomacy to solve traps as an evil party. All you need is an impressively high modifier and a peasant. Every miner needs a canary.:smallamused:

[Marlowe]

They also lead to a bit of circular reasoning in class/dungeon/party design.

You have to have traps in your dungeon so the rogue has time to shine.

You have to have a rogue in the party because there are probably traps in the dungeon.

You can't give trapfinding to other classes because it will take the rogue's special snowflake status.

End result: "Someone has to play a rogue."

So yes, loathe them.

http://i.imgur.com/r4qxzr1.png
http://i.imgur.com/aZtvBbk.png
http://i.imgur.com/uIrhmgV.png
http://i.imgur.com/ald1IVZ.png
http://i.imgur.com/XT4RGgY.png
http://i.imgur.com/C4U0ltQ.png
http://i.imgur.com/8HWHYb0.png
http://i.imgur.com/t03OP2t.png
http://i.imgur.com/LzNbL8Z.png
http://i.imgur.com/AEhu5AY.png
http://i.imgur.com/XBex1tP.png
http://i.imgur.com/z7p5YWq.png
Not happy with the whole "broken" distinction myself. But I've had DMs pull much worse.

[Âmesang]

Hey, now. Necromancers can disarm traps, too, you know. :smallwink:
And bards can just charm their way through. :smalltongue:

"Sir Lock? Wouldst thou do us the honor of opening for us? I am told that thou art the strongest of locks and can hold back an army!"

EDIT: I'm wondering, would the trap rules be enough for trap-like situations? For example, if a wizard used polymorph any object to turn a section of stone floor into lava beneath his enemy's feet, would that be equivalent to a pit trap for the purpose of avoiding it?

[Extra Anchovies]

Can someone link to that one blog post that describes how to do D&D traps better? i.e. they should be a puzzle for the group rather than an HP tax or solo encounter for the rogue.

You're talking about Bad Trap Syndrome (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/), yes?

Personally, I think the original White Plume Mountain adventure should be required reading for playing D&D; every trap and combat is so much more than just rolling dice and crunching numbers, and there's a lot of room for creativity among the dungeon's various challenges.

[OldTrees1]

I love traps because I love the interaction, but I run them differently than you do:

The player describes where and how they are searching and what they are looking for. Then they roll a search check.
Then I look at their description. If they hit it on the mark they succeed without even looking at their roll. If the trap is within the focus of their description then they get a sizable bonus to their result. If their description excludes the trap but the area they are searching includes the trap, then I just use their result.
Once the player has found a trap, then I describe the trap. The player can ask questions for more/clarifying detail.
Now knowing the trap, the players can either bypass, alter, disable, or destroy the trap. They tell me what they want to do and how they are doing it.
Then I look at their solution. Some solutions do not require a roll (like plugging arrow slits or wedging a trapdoor struck). Other solutions (like installing a bypass or another trigger) would require a disable device check with a bonus. If the players were stumped then an unmodified disable device check will disable the trap.


Oh, and I give everyone Trapfinding but make 5 ranks of Disable Device grant +2 synergy to Search when looking for traps/secret doors/etc.

[ComaVision]

Personally, I think the original White Plume Mountain adventure should be required reading for playing D&D; every trap and combat is so much more than just rolling dice and crunching numbers, and there's a lot of room for creativity among the dungeon's various challenges.

What about the green slime that just falls on the party, no save?

[CharonsHelper]

Traps on their own aren't really a threat unless they can 1-hit KO a party member, just a drain on the wand of cure light wounds. And 1-hit KO traps just feel cheap.

Traps should be used in combination with foes.

A pit trap is lame.

A scattering of 3-4 shallow pit traps which activate with 50lbs+ when fighting goblins or kobolds are freakin' scary & interesting.

[Flickerdart]

I love traps because I love the interaction, but I run them differently than you do:

The player describes where and how they are searching and what they are looking for. Then they roll a search check.
Then I look at their description. If they hit it on the mark they succeed without even looking at their roll. If the trap is within the focus of their description then they get a sizable bonus to their result. If their description excludes the trap but the area they are searching includes the trap, then I just use their result.
Once the player has found a trap, then I describe the trap. The player can ask questions for more/clarifying detail.
Now knowing the trap, the players can either bypass, alter, disable, or destroy the trap. They tell me what they want to do and how they are doing it.
Then I look at their solution. Some solutions do not require a roll (like plugging arrow slits or wedging a trapdoor struck). Other solutions (like installing a bypass or another trigger) would require a disable device check with a bonus. If the players were stumped then an unmodified disable device check will disable the trap.


Oh, and I give everyone Trapfinding but make 5 ranks of Disable Device grant +2 synergy to Search when looking for traps/secret doors/etc.
This is also highlighting a different part of the problem - a lot of traps are not challenges to the PCs, but challenges to their players, of the "guess what the DM is thinking" variety. "Green slime falls on you" and the various Tomb of Horrors type traps are the ultimate version of this.

[Geddy2112]

I also hate traps. Traps in a vacuum are garbage.

Good traps are not traps, as much as consequences for solving a puzzle incorrectly, or obvious hazards that have to be overcome with more than a disable device.

The best "traps" are alarms. Falling on spikes or getting an arrow shot at you is one thing, but alerting the other baddies in the area....

[Faily]

I don't mind traps, and I actually think they can be more fun as a challenge if the party doesn't have a rogue. Have seen plenty of scenarios with clever players bypassing traps when they don't have anyone to disable them.

There was only one adventure I really really REALLY hated traps, and that was the first part of Shackled City. The amount of traps in that place was mind-boggingly ridiculous.

[BowStreetRunner]

I am seriously working through the mechanics of overcoming a trap through social skills now. I've already looked through the Animate Object > Awaken Construct line of spells and not found what I needed. Polymorph also seems not to really make sense. I mean, if you can make the trap just change into something else, you can overcome it without needing to employ a social skill. But this is 3.5 people, there HAS to be a way to defeat a trap using social skills, and I don't just mean convincing a peasant to go set it off for you.

[Darrin]

Does anyone else have similar feelings?


Yes.

ars ludi: Bad Trap Syndrome (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/)

ars ludi: Bad Trap Syndrome (Part 2) (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/91/bad-trap-syndrome-curing-the-bad-trap-blues/)



Because of the lack of interactivity with them.


That pretty much hits the nail on the head for me.

[OldTrees1]

This is also highlighting a different part of the problem - a lot of traps are not challenges to the PCs, but challenges to their players, of the "guess what the DM is thinking" variety. "Green slime falls on you" and the various Tomb of Horrors type traps are the ultimate version of this.

RE:Challenging the players
They can be. Personally I like it when both the Character & the Player are able to challenge the trap. That is why I left both unmodified skill checks in to cover for if the Player does not succeed but the Character does. However it does mean that traps have a limited audience (just like all subsystems, including combat, have limited audiences).


RE:Guess what the DM is thinking
If the nature and placement of traps are logical, then it is more like deducing from the campaign world then trying to read the DM's mind. While Tomb of Horrors has many good examples of illogical traps, there is one pit trap in the opening hall that is a rather logical trap:
In a hall full of pit traps there is a small chest attached to a wall about waist high. Inside the chest is a lever (object that would need to be grabbed) coated in contact poison. The lever opens up a pit trap beneath the suspended chest (and thus beneath the lever).

[Âmesang]

There was only one adventure I really really REALLY hated traps, and that was the first part of Shackled City. The amount of traps in that place was mind-boggingly ridiculous.
Wasn't that first part that abandoned gnomish enclave? :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

You're talking about Bad Trap Syndrome (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/), yes?

That's the one, thanks! Bookmarked.

[Extra Anchovies]

Any good trap should be a self-resetting one, given how easy it is to acquire a disposable scout of some kind or another - either the Summon Elemental reserve feat or a Bag of Tricks can get one on demand, and a 1st-level spell slot can be use to summon medium centipedes or wolves, both fast creatures with roughly the same weight as a normal humanoid. Watching the scout run forward and be crushed by falling rocks is boring, but watching it run forward and be horribly killed in a way that will evidently happen to anyone else who follows it means a challenge.


What about the green slime that just falls on the party, no save?

A quick search turns up that it falls from the ceiling in the 3.5 update, which I don't have available. Is the slime hidden in some way, or is it just hanging out on the ceiling? In the latter case it would be visible to anyone who wasn't staring at their toes. Green slime drops in response to movement, so a scout created by summon monster/bag of tricks/animate dead/etc would trigger it, as would the classic ten-foot pole.

In my AD&D 1st copy, the slime is in shallow water, making it hard to spot and tricky to burn off if stepped on. A disposable scout would handle that instance of green slime just as easily.

[ComaVision]

A quick search turns up that it falls from the ceiling in the 3.5 update, which I don't have available. Is the slime hidden in some way, or is it just hanging out on the ceiling? In the latter case it would be visible to anyone who wasn't staring at their toes. Green slime drops in response to movement, so a scout created by summon monster/bag of tricks/animate dead/etc would trigger it, as would the classic ten-foot pole.

In my AD&D 1st copy, the slime is in shallow water, making it hard to spot and tricky to burn off if stepped on. A disposable scout would handle that instance of green slime just as easily.

Off of memory, I believe the group is afforded a Spot check. It's certainly easy to "disarm" (if noticed, my group didn't see it) but I wouldn't call it an interesting encounter at all.

[Albions_Angel]

The basic traps suck on their own, but there are ways to make them SUPER SCARY.

The obvious way is time. The less obvious way is some other distraction.

If your party is escaping something, suddenly that boring 20 foot pit trap with no spikes goes from boring to "Oh my god! He fell in! Kell! Can you hear me? We will get you out, just hold on!"

Similarly, traps that slow the party or alert the enemy are good. My party had to rescue someone from some bandits up a valley. A random trap table later and they couldnt search every square, but knew there were traps. Some of the traps slowed them down, some had lasting effects, some made a lot of noise, some closed off ways to go. Rogue or no rogue, they couldnt stop and disable them all. They had to THINK.

[Manyasone]

I don't mind traps, and I actually think they can be more fun as a challenge if the party doesn't have a rogue. Have seen plenty of scenarios with clever players bypassing traps when they don't have anyone to disable them.

There was only one adventure I really really REALLY hated traps, and that was the first part of Shackled City. The amount of traps in that place was mind-boggingly ridiculous.

The smashing pit trap mechanisms? Those f****rs cost us my own character...

[Darth Ultron]

Does anyone else have similar feelings?

I love traps.

As a Dm my world is full of traps. And i love nothing more then using them on characters.

I wonder why your so obsessed with ''interaction''? How is say fighting a guard ''more'' interaction then setting off a trap? Is it just as you can't use rule interpretation and exploits against a trap? And if you can't use them against a trap, why can you use them against anything else?

[Honest Tiefling]

They also lead to a bit of circular reasoning in class/dungeon/party design.

You have to have traps in your dungeon so the rogue has time to shine.

You have to have a rogue in the party because there are probably traps in the dungeon.

You can't give trapfinding to other classes because it will take the rogue's special snowflake status.

End result: "Someone has to play a rogue."

So yes, loathe them.

Yeah, seconding this. I have never encountered someone who wanted to play a rogue to do nothing but disarm traps, but that's their role I guess? Not stabbing things while being an agile combatant or being super stealthy, no, you're just a trap ****. Feel free to fall asleep, we can just roll your d20 for you.

I am still bitter at many attempts to make functional rogues.

[CharonsHelper]

Yeah, seconding this. I have never encountered someone who wanted to play a rogue to do nothing but disarm traps, but that's their role I guess? Not stabbing things while being an agile combatant or being super stealthy, no, you're just a trap ****. Feel free to fall asleep, we can just roll your d20 for you.

I am still bitter at many attempts to make functional rogues.

Pathfinder's Unchained Rogue can be pretty decent. Above average for a martial.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, seconding this. I have never encountered someone who wanted to play a rogue to do nothing but disarm traps, but that's their role I guess? Not stabbing things while being an agile combatant or being super stealthy, no, you're just a trap ****. Feel free to fall asleep, we can just roll your d20 for you.

Reminds me of the dwarven wardsmith (magical included version of locksmith) character I have wanted to run. Although that character still cares about stealth and combat, just not as much as about traps/locks/wards/hazards/ambushes/secret passages/etc.

In a quote: "I can show you the way from here to there as long as you are up for the dangers and are not too noisy about it."

[Faily]

Wasn't that first part that abandoned gnomish enclave? :smalltongue:

Yes, that one. That playgroup still talks about "that damn dungeon" sometimes when we want to draw comparisons to how stupid these pre-written adventures have been (since we only play published stuff in that group). I think it ranks at 2nd or 3rd place. Undisputed 1st place is still Savage Tide. :smalltongue:


The smashing pit trap mechanisms? Those f****rs cost us my own character...

All of us survived, barely. We piled together all the money we had and bought a wand for healing for our cleric to use, and we managed to become level 2 after withdrawing, so we came back to it and I had then gained my first level of Rogue (was going to be a Swashbuckler/Rogue/Thief Acrobat/Blade Bravo) so things were... a little more survivable. The monsters in there were still scary as hell, though!

[LudicSavant]

Oh how I loathe traps. They are one of the cornerstones of DND and yet are one of the worst parts of the game.

Why do I think that?

Because of the lack of interactivity with them.


All the other aspects of DND have multiple ways to do, combat, social aspects, magic and so on. There are multiple classes and multiple ways to do them.

Not traps.

Theres only a small handful of classes that can even find them (Scout, Rogue, Ninja, Beguiler, maybe some more?) and what do you do?

"Roll a d20"

Thats it.

Now dont get me wrong, in DND everything is dictated by a d20, but traps have no choice at all. Its either a pass or fail interaction that doesnt lend itself to any sort of choice.

Does anyone else have similar feelings?

You may like "Encounter Traps" introduced in the Eberron sourcebook Secrets of Xen'drik, which are a more interactive version of D&D traps.

[Eldariel]

Alarm near the entrance to the Wizard's chambers; well-placed bear traps around the campsite; negative energy blasts in a hallway held by undead; traps are great but they shouldn't exist alone in a vacuum. A trap should either be a part of another encounter (designed sensibly) where they come into play on the fly, or a more complex machine than a Disable Device-one. Disable Device can be a part of the solution but it shouldn't be the whole story. Just a quick read through the Tomb of Horrors gives plenty of good ideas. Or watch any of the Cube-movies. Just make sure there's no cookie-cutter solution to everything and things begin to get a whole lot more engaging already. You can play with everything from languages and riddles to senses to agility/strength/durability, and such.

Of course, there are many ways around any given trap but any sensible designer is aware of this and thus the traps should guard such targets that are intrinsically valuable (essentially, to get the thing you need to get through the trap) or chokepoints that are not trivial to bypass (that is, ones that can't simply be burrowed/teleported/flown through that easily). And generally, having failsafes so that to properly bypass it you need multiple people (suppressing the failsafes while someone dismantles the main system) or some unorthodox solution is a good idea.

[eggynack]

I love traps.

As a Dm my world is full of traps. And i love nothing more then using them on characters.

I wonder why your so obsessed with ''interaction''? How is say fighting a guard ''more'' interaction then setting off a trap? Is it just as you can't use rule interpretation and exploits against a trap? And if you can't use them against a trap, why can you use them against anything else?
There's so much more interaction with fighting a guard. I mean, if we're post-activation here, as is implied by your statement, then there's zero interaction left. Meanwhile, even if you're a commoner, you have a ton of options in fighting a guard. You can run away, or attack him, or attack from a different position, or use any number of combat maneuvers. Poorly, granted, but they're available. And the class doesn't exist that has fewer options than a commoner. Fighting has any sort of interaction at all, at least, and post-trap doesn't.

If you're talking pre-activation, then there's still way more interaction to fighting. Most of the mechanics to traps make up a simple linear decision tree. You can search or not search, and once you've identified that there's a trap, you can disable, or maybe do a couple of other things situationally. Meanwhile fighting has a lot of the same kinds of situational decisions. Y'know, tossing flour around to deal with invisibility, making use of cover, and so on, but it has way more purely class oriented modes of interaction. Higher tier characters clearly have a ridiculous number of ways to interact, but even looking lower down you have a ton of options. Any melee character has their pile of combat maneuvers, any amount of casting whatsoever adds a bunch of choices, and there's a bunch of interesting class features out there to enhance the strategy of combat. Oh, and you can also use scouting and hiding and such, along with a pile of similar effects, to avoid combat altogether, so that's not exactly an advantage for traps. Moreover, guards have more wiggle room. You're likely to survive trap and guard alike, but a trap typically has only two results, success or failure, while a guard can consume a variety of different resources depending on approach and a number of different rolls.

So, the point is simply that combat has way more mechanical juice behind it. The relevant rules are way more strategic, complex, and generally interesting. Also, traps have the disadvantage that you're usually only engaging one character. Any number of party members can engage a guard simultaneously, so even if we could say that one character would have the same quality of experience facing a guard as a trap, a party of four could still be said to have four times the interaction in the guard showdown. All that stuff is why encounter traps are cool, as are traps in combat encounters. The general idea is linking up traps with the far superior rules for combat, which enables complexity, group participation, a variety of outcomes, really fixing everything wrong with traps.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Tucker's (http://tuckerskobolds.com/) kobolds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?155518-Tucker-s-Kobolds-PEACH-3-5&p=8664950&viewfull=1#post8664950), anyone (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?155518-Tucker-s-Kobolds-PEACH-3-5&p=8665487&viewfull=1#post8665487)?

[Pugwampy]

Dungeon Bums are unwanted intruders invading someones home . Its perfectly logical to have some sort of security or deterrent measure in place .

Rogue players can feel very inadequate in the middle of combat even with sneak attack scouting ahead and archery .

Wizard and Fighter players can waste in incredible amount of table time trying to bypass a detected trap.

Not everyone wants be Merlin or Conan . Some folk admire and want to play Robin Hood . Not really a question of how essential he is , he needs his own special place in DND land to call his own . Its always nice when the combat player says "We need a rogue for this...

I am a monster DM thats my favorite part but if there is a rogue in the group , I make it my personal duty to roll thrice for any chest or door . 1st D6 roll locked / open / jammed . 2nd 50/50 roll is it trapped or not . If trapped .... 3rd D12 roll , random trap list .

Rogue players appreciate my effort .

[LudicSavant]

Dungeon Bums are unwanted intruders invading someones home . Its perfectly logical to have some sort of security or deterrent measure in place .

Rogue players can feel very inadequate in the middle of combat even with sneak attack scouting ahead and archery .

Wizard and Fighter players can waste in incredible amount of table time trying to bypass a detected trap.

Not everyone wants be Merlin or Conan . Some folk admire and want to play Robin Hood . Not really a question of how essential he is , he needs his own special place in DND land to call his own . Its always nice when the combat player says "We need a rogue for this...

I am a monster DM thats my favorite part but if there is a rogue in the group , I make it my personal duty to roll thrice for any chest or door . 1st D6 roll locked / open / jammed . 2nd 50/50 roll is it trapped or not . If trapped .... 3rd D12 roll , random trap list .

Rogue players appreciate my effort .

Robin Hood wasn't inadequate in combat. Rogues needn't be designed to feel inadequate in combat either.

[Bohandas]

Theres only a small handful of classes that can even find them (Scout, Rogue, Ninja, Beguiler, maybe some more?) and what do you do?

Remember tne old OoTS where nobody except Haley could see that the treasure chest was on top of a giant mousetrap?

[Triskavanski]

In 2nd edition, my Fighter disarmed more traps than the party rogue. Particularly because the GM at the time was a good one who adjusted for some of the weird and wacky things I tended to do. Like I was pushing rocks around, sliding them across every single trap panel. I used a spike to stop a closing door, and ruined a water/drowning trap.

In 3.5 I actually rarely ever see traps. Particularly because 3.5's backwards logic with finding/disabling magic traps, and how skill points where some of the most stupidest things they could come up with. Seriously, how did they come with with x4 skill point at first level and other nuiancess of skills? Pathfinder made more sense except for the whole lack of synergy between skills.

[Triskavanski]

There's so much more interaction with fighting a guard. I mean, if we're post-activation here, as is implied by your statement, then there's zero interaction left. Meanwhile, even if you're a commoner, you have a ton of options in fighting a guard. You can run away, or attack him, or attack from a different position, or use any number of combat maneuvers. Poorly, granted, but they're available. And the class doesn't exist that has fewer options than a commoner. Fighting has any sort of interaction at all, at least, and post-trap doesn't.

If you're talking pre-activation, then there's still way more interaction to fighting. Most of the mechanics to traps make up a simple linear decision tree. You can search or not search, and once you've identified that there's a trap, you can disable, or maybe do a couple of other things situationally. Meanwhile fighting has a lot of the same kinds of situational decisions. Y'know, tossing flour around to deal with invisibility, making use of cover, and so on, but it has way more purely class oriented modes of interaction. Higher tier characters clearly have a ridiculous number of ways to interact, but even looking lower down you have a ton of options. Any melee character has their pile of combat maneuvers, any amount of casting whatsoever adds a bunch of choices, and there's a bunch of interesting class features out there to enhance the strategy of combat. Oh, and you can also use scouting and hiding and such, along with a pile of similar effects, to avoid combat altogether, so that's not exactly an advantage for traps. Moreover, guards have more wiggle room. You're likely to survive trap and guard alike, but a trap typically has only two results, success or failure, while a guard can consume a variety of different resources depending on approach and a number of different rolls.

So, the point is simply that combat has way more mechanical juice behind it. The relevant rules are way more strategic, complex, and generally interesting. Also, traps have the disadvantage that you're usually only engaging one character. Any number of party members can engage a guard simultaneously, so even if we could say that one character would have the same quality of experience facing a guard as a trap, a party of four could still be said to have four times the interaction in the guard showdown. All that stuff is why encounter traps are cool, as are traps in combat encounters. The general idea is linking up traps with the far superior rules for combat, which enables complexity, group participation, a variety of outcomes, really fixing everything wrong with traps.

But of course then it brings it into everything that is wrong with combat. Most traps, with a good skilled rogue are over in 2-3 rolls, and everyone moves on with their life. Most combats however, have a number of rolls per character, per round, per combat. It results in longer times where you have to take out for all these encounter traps.

When I design traps myself, I do a large variety of things. Some traps have a puzzle that requires the players to think. Of course I've found several players lack the ability or really hate thinking things. Some traps are simple roll a few times. Some I design specifically for the characters/players. There was one player I knew who as extremely greedy and would try to always get all the copper coins he could.. So glued one down into a pillar trap to let him rush over to it. Another trap was a set of spikes that just stayed there. They didn't move or anything. Infact you could easily walk between them. But Paranoia got to the players.

[eggynack]

But of course then it brings it into everything that is wrong with combat. Most traps, with a good skilled rogue are over in 2-3 rolls, and everyone moves on with their life. Most combats however, have a number of rolls per character, per round, per combat. It results in longer times where you have to take out for all these encounter traps.
Yeah, but I don't measure the quality of a thing by how fast it happens. Not saying short and sweet is a bad thing, but a normal trap is just really really boring and pointless. You do those rolls, and then maybe you get hit, or maybe you don't, and it's all a waste of mental energy. Sure, one could logically expect an enemy stronghold of whatever kind to have traps, but one could also logically expect a lot of things that aren't true about the game. Way I figure it, if you're not having fun doing a thing, then that thing shouldn't be in the game. Is combat a perfect experience all around? No, because nothing is, but at least it's an experience. And, for all its length, it can be a pretty fun experience. I don't see why these particular types of traps would exist in the first place aside from the fact that you get to say there were traps in the game, or that you defeated those traps.


When I design traps myself, I do a large variety of things. Some traps have a puzzle that requires the players to think. Of course I've found several players lack the ability or really hate thinking things. Some traps are simple roll a few times. Some I design specifically for the characters/players. There was one player I knew who as extremely greedy and would try to always get all the copper coins he could.. So glued one down into a pillar trap to let him rush over to it. Another trap was a set of spikes that just stayed there. They didn't move or anything. Infact you could easily walk between them. But Paranoia got to the players.
There are certainly places and ways traps make sense. When they take thought, or at least when they require something more than simple rolls with no realistic options apart from those rolls. And that, to some extent, the way the game's trap system works.

[Pugwampy]

Robin Hood wasn't inadequate in combat. Rogues needn't be designed to feel inadequate in combat either.

Oh i am pretty sure a DM veteran player could do wonders with a rogue but usually its the newbies who try their luck while vets go all wargod . The skill gap is huge .

I dont force jobs on anybody its the players choice . I try to explain the need for guys like rogues and clerics hoping someone will bite . Sad fact is I dont find rogue class very essential other then its slows the game down when dealing with traps or locks . Non rogue players just find inventive ways to deal with it .

First time I played Dnd , I was the half orc shlubb with the most Hp ordered to set off traps while the players ran out the room , came back and healed me .

The drawn out combat mechanics vs a couple seconds d20 disable trap rolls probably does make fighters seem more important because combat eats literally half of the game time .

[ryu]

Oh i am pretty sure a DM veteran player could do wonders with a rogue but usually its the newbies who try their luck while vets go all wargod . The skill gap is huge .

I dont force jobs on anybody its the players choice . I try to explain the need for guys like rogues and clerics hoping someone will bite . Sad fact is I dont find rogue class very essential other then its slows the game down when dealing with traps or locks . Non rogue players just find inventive ways to deal with it .

First time I played Dnd , I was the half orc shlubb with the most Hp ordered to set off traps while the players ran out the room , came back and healed me .

The drawn out combat mechanics vs a couple seconds d20 disable trap rolls probably does make fighters seem more important because combat eats literally half of the game time .

Except the reason you want a cleric has little to nothing to due with healing ability. Out of combat healing is easily accomplished by most of the classes in the entire game from low level, and in-combat healing is demonstrably less efficient than just preventing more injuries by ending the combat, or crowd controlling in most instances.

[Fizban]

Any good trap should be a self-resetting one,
I think you're the first person I've ever seen acknowledge this when people start going on about literal trap monkeys. Seriously, who actually uses one-shot traps as encounters? One-shot traps are set up by creatures to gain a combat advantage. Any trap that's meant to guard an area for any length of time is going to be auto-resetting, with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, or blades/doors/whatever that don't have ammo to run out, or just magic because magic. Trap monkeys are useful for finding those but do absolutely nothing to disable them, you have to use additional resources to get past the trap once you know it's there. Or you could have a rogue who deals with them in a couple skill checks.

Traps are a necessary and important part of the game. Using them correctly is where the failure happens. Each trap must have a specific purpose, which could range from a quick combat advantage for a monster group, to being part of a constant drain on resources, to being sudden instant death for the unwary. They are obstacles which can be bypassed in various ways depending on the trap, and you must choose the trap based on what sorts of bypass you wish to encourage or discourage. And you must recognize that the published material expects the party to have a Trapfinder who can deal with everything with straight skill rolls, which means they haven't put any thought into it and you'll probably have to redesign lots of stuff.

[Pugwampy]

Another fact is there is chance the rogue crit fails and trap explodes , Rogue needs to survive so it cannot be a 100 hp damage trap . That does not make it very scary to guys with immune to fire spells or 200 hp

Yup traps that reset are very problematic and yet not impossible .

[Beheld]

Another fact is there is chance the rogue crit fails and trap explodes , Rogue needs to survive so it cannot be a 100 hp damage trap . That does not make it very scary to guys with immune to fire spells or 200 hp.

A Rogue can't critical failure a trap, because there are no critical failures on disarming traps, or any other skill check.

[Elkad]

Traps are generally useless in a vacuum.

If there is nobody to take advantage of the noise, delay, and/or separation they create, they accomplish nothing. Oh sure, they may burn party resources, but as the trapmaker I don't care about that, unless I can make my traps incredibly lethal. (and self-resetting). My pit is useless if they can spend 3 days using their helmets for shovels to fill it in.

Defend your traps.

[Marlowe]

A defense that needs defense is more than a little question-begging.

[Pugwampy]

A Rogue can't critical failure a trap, because there are no critical failures on disarming traps, or any other skill check.

Not my land . They roll 1 it goes KABOOM . If they roll a 20 they get to salvage it for free . Its cheap baiting tactic to keep the rogue fiddling with it long after its disarmed . :smallbiggrin:



Except the reason you want a cleric has little to nothing to due with healing ability.

Nope . To be honest , healing is exactly why I want a cleric .

I suppose i was thinking of pathfinder clerics with high CHA and selective channel feat assuming nobody saw that unofficial D8 channel Priest class .

You are quite right , the average 3.5 cleric healing magic stinks although there are a few specialist healing class and feat options that does make it viable .

[Flickerdart]

Not my land . They roll 1 it goes KABOOM . If they roll a 20 they get to salvage it for free . Its cheap baiting tactic to keep the rogue fiddling with it long after its disarmed . :smallbiggrin:
So every 1 in 20 disarmed traps, the rogue gets screwed over? That's fun. I imagine your players are all really eager to play rogues.

[OldTrees1]

So every 1 in 20 disarmed traps, the rogue gets screwed over? That's fun. I imagine your players are all really eager to play rogues.

I do know some players that prefer reversed bell curves some of the time (as an occasional spice rather than a regular diet).

[Eldariel]

Nope . To be honest , healing is exactly why I want a cleric .

I suppose i was thinking of pathfinder clerics with high CHA and selective channel feat assuming nobody saw that unofficial D8 channel Priest class .

You are quite right , the average 3.5 cleric healing magic stinks although there are a few specialist healing class and feat options that does make it viable .

Healing is a good option to have available but primarily you should always strive to minimize resource consumption first: the party should strive for any damage they are taking to be dealt to your expendable minions (undead/constructs/bound creatures/summons/class features), the party should strive to gain the first strive and initiative in fights and take as much of the enemy out without a chance for a counterattack (thus stealthy, invisible, inaudible, many-sensed scouts or even better, divination magic into area of effect disabling spells, high alpha damage attackers and control tools to minimize the risk of enemy hitting back) and the party should pick the most resource-efficient actions in combat.

Thus, once a combat breaks out the first priority should be disabling or destroying the enemy's offensive potential using as little resources as possible (through spells, martial restrictions and damage). Of course, it's generally better to use a bit more resources than necessary and be safe/sure in your victory than risk it all on completely minimizing resource expenditure. Either way, every action to heal is an action that spends your daily limited use resources (spell slots, items or class features) without limiting the amount of hits you are taking. Thus even if you're trading even on spells (someone deals X damage with a spell and you heal X damage; hard to achieve short of the "Heal"-spell, by the way), you're using more resources to achieve the same than if you disabled the opponent casting a spell with your spell. If you heal, said enemy can do the damage again while if you disable the enemy, you're taking no more damage. Thus, it's practically always more resource efficient to disable the enemy first and heal afterwards than the other way around (the same principles can be applied to any turn-based combat system with expendable resources, by the way).

Now, someone dying is a huge resource loss (you lose a full character's worth of actions not to mention the resources lost in resurrecting them; a level and a ton of gold is a huge deal). Thus sometimes you need to prioritise healing over offense, and particularly if someone goes down you need to prioritise getting them back on their feet within a round (using Revivify/Last Breath/similar spells) before the window closes and the price for reviving them goes up tremendously. However, if nobody is in immediate danger of dying, healing actions are generally inefficient both in terms of your combat action use and daily resource use.


Clerics in particular get good summons, save-or-disable spells, battlefield control spells, no-save effects, some good buffs (buffs should primarily be cast out of combat or with swift actions unless they're really good, such as Haste, or if there's an otherwise low key action available such as a turn where you lack line of sight/effect to the enemy), etc. Thus, a Cleric is generally better off spending their actions making sure people don't take any damage that needs healing rather than healing them, but there are few exceptions. And this goes for both, PF and 3.5 (in PF in particular, Cleric summons are amazing and can save way more damage than any amount of healing much of the time).

[ComaVision]

Its cheap baiting tactic to keep the rogue fiddling with it long after its disarmed . :smallbiggrin:


What does this even mean? Rerolling until they get a 20 for salvage, or 1 for boom?

[Pugwampy]

Well yes thats exactly what I mean and our rogue enjoyed doing that regardless of profit or consequence .

[eggynack]

Well yes thats exactly what I mean and our rogue enjoyed doing that regardless of profit or consequence .
Why not just have salvage/explosion rules that exist completely separate from the skill system, where you have the ability to flip a coin after disabling a trap to either make it salvagable or make it blow up in your face? That seems to have the same effect as the one you want, without also screwing up the rest of the skill system with weird critical effects.

[CharonsHelper]

Why not just have salvage/explosion rules that exist completely separate from the skill system, where you have the ability to flip a coin after disabling a trap to either make it salvagable or make it blow up in your face? That seems to have the same effect as the one you want, without also screwing up the rest of the skill system with weird critical effects.

Plus it won't take half a dozen rolls.

[illyahr]

According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm), you can critically fail a disable device check by missing the DC by 5 or more. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can bypass it without setting it off.

So pugwampy wasn't doing anything the actual rules didn't already set a precedent for. In fact, he was making it easier on his group by only having something go wrong on a natural 1 rather than by a failure of 5 or more.

Also, you only need a class with Trapfinding to disable magical traps, such as a glyph of warding or similar. Mundane traps can be disabled by anyone using mundane means. The rules even suggest ways to do so.

[eggynack]

According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm), you can critically fail a disable device check by missing the DC by 5 or more. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can bypass it without setting it off.

So pugwampy wasn't doing anything the actual rules didn't already set a precedent for. In fact, he was making it easier on his group by only having something go wrong on a natural 1 rather than by a failure of 5 or more..
That isn't how critical failure and success are defined. Critical failure is defined by not especially caring how good the character is at the thing, and leading them to failure even if their ability in the skill far outstrips the particular requirements in a situation. Critical failure is the opposite. That you can fail worse than usual if your roll and ability combined don't hit a certain threshold is just normal skillmanship, and is fine. There is precedent for a skill roll having lesser or greater results depending on your roll and points combined. That's just how the system works. There isn't precedent for your roll completely obviating your skill points in either direction.

And the reason there's no precedent for that is cause it makes no sense, particularly in the critical success direction. Attacks are different, because there the outcome of an attack is something well defined by the game. Skills, by contrast, frequently have their outcome determined by the player, or otherwise have broad and frequently inaccessible abilities, and so critical success can be abused heavily. The traditional example is jumping to the moon, but plenty of other things exist. Anything that can be done through epic skill use, for example. That's the reason for critical success, anyway. Critical failure, of any kind, is problematic because it strips you of any recourse arbitrarily. The greatest mundane craftsman in the world could attempt to carve a stick into a somewhat smaller stick, and accidentally break the thing into kindling. It's silly.

[Beheld]

According to the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm), you can critically fail a disable device check by missing the DC by 5 or more. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can bypass it without setting it off.

So pugwampy wasn't doing anything the actual rules didn't already set a precedent for. In fact, he was making it easier on his group by only having something go wrong on a natural 1 rather than by a failure of 5 or more.

His specific rule is that it blows up even if the you beat the DC. He only brought it up because he was talking about how Rogues with a high enough Disable to never ever ever fail would still have traps blow up in their face.

Yeah, that ain't easier on the group.

[illyahr]

And the reason there's no precedent for that is cause it makes no sense, particularly in the critical success direction. Attacks are different, because there the outcome of an attack is something well defined by the game. Skills, by contrast, frequently have their outcome determined by the player, or otherwise have broad and frequently inaccessible abilities, and so critical success can be abused heavily. The traditional example is jumping to the moon, but plenty of other things exist. Anything that can be done through epic skill use, for example. That's the reason for critical success, anyway. Critical failure, of any kind, is problematic because it strips you of any recourse arbitrarily. The greatest mundane craftsman in the world could attempt to carve a stick into a somewhat smaller stick, and accidentally break the thing into kindling. It's silly.

Actually, it does make sense. Many people, myself included, have succeeded on a task by accident. Not because we are particularly skilled, we just got lucky. And yes, a master carpenter could still break a stick trying to whittle it down if there was a knot or bur in the wood he wasn't aware of. Or perhaps the tool he was using had the handle separate from the blade mid stroke. An Olympic pole-vaulter could have the pole snap. Stupid accidents happen, one way or another. Does this mean a Nat 20 on a Jump check sends you to the moon? Of course not. But a surprisingly effective resolution to the task at hand, one that the jumper didn't know could be a result, is not outside the realm of possibility.

The only issue I have with it is that a 5% chance either way is way too large for something like this, even with attack rolls. That is why there are critical confirmation rolls on attack rolls and why, if you're are going to use critical fumbles, you should use critical failure confirmation rolls.

[Deophaun]

Best trap monkey ever was a Paladin with Planar Touchstone for the Pride Domain.

Paladin: I stride into the middle of the room.
DM: You set off three traps. One... can only hit you on a 20. And give me a Fort and a Will.
Paladin: 46 and... hold on, natural 1... 52.
DM: I don't know why I bother.
Paladin: I bash the mechanisms with my adamantine hammer!
DM: Of course you do.

[eggynack]

Actually, it does make sense. Many people, myself included, have succeeded on a task by accident. Not because we are particularly skilled, we just got lucky. And yes, a master carpenter could still break a stick trying to whittle it down if there was a knot or bur in the wood he wasn't aware of. Or perhaps the tool he was using had the handle separate from the blade mid stroke. An Olympic pole-vaulter could have the pole snap. Stupid accidents happen, one way or another. Does this mean a Nat 20 on a Jump check sends you to the moon? Of course not. But a surprisingly effective resolution to the task at hand, one that the jumper didn't know could be a result, is not outside the realm of possibility.
This isn't just about succeeding or failing at a task by accident. It's about succeeding at an impossible task or failing at an impossibly easy task by accident. Because maybe you can't go to the moon, but where are you drawing the line, and how is whatever line you draw not completely arbitrary? And, in the opposite direction, this master carpenter isn't just a master by our standards. He's practically a God of carpentry, with a capability in the skill several orders of magnitude greater than anything mankind is capable of, and he's supposed to be failing due to something as trivial as a knot in the piece of wood. That strikes me as silly. There's room in the game for luck and lack thereof, but at a certain point some tasks should just not have this kinda chance of ultimate failure.

As something of a sidenote, you point out that 5% is too big a probability region, and that's accurate, but the observation points out another problem with this stuff in general. Particularly, that an ultimate master swordsman has no additional chance of noticing the momentary lucky lapse of an otherwise unhittable foe as compared to some shlub with a dagger. Part of skill is being better able to take advantage of luck, and that's not a thing native to this part of the system. Same goes for theoretical skill success systems. Someone sufficiently skilled is much more able to notice the knot in the piece of wood, or more rapidly recover from an error, or know when he needs to buy a new knife. All of that advantage from crazy training is thrown right out the window the minute you get a specific roll, whether that roll is a 20 or 5 sequential 20's. And it's weird.

[illyahr]

There's room in the game for luck and lack thereof, but at a certain point some tasks should just not have this kinda chance of ultimate failure.

I agree with you there. That's why I don't usually do critical success or critical failure on skill checks and I require confirmation rolls on critical failures of attack rolls. The point I was originally trying to convey is that, by nature of many moving parts, Disable Device has a built-in critical failure threshold where failing by too much causes something bad to happen anyway. Reducing that failure rate to 5% is particularly helpful for low- to mid-level adventurers.


As something of a sidenote, you point out that 5% is too big a probability region, and that's accurate, but the observation points out another problem with this stuff in general. Particularly, that an ultimate master swordsman has no additional chance of noticing the momentary lucky lapse of an otherwise unhittable foe as compared to some shlub with a dagger. Part of skill is being better able to take advantage of luck, and that's not a thing native to this part of the system. Same goes for theoretical skill success systems. Someone sufficiently skilled is much more able to notice the knot in the piece of wood, or more rapidly recover from an error, or know when he needs to buy a new knife. All of that advantage from crazy training is thrown right out the window the minute you get a specific roll, whether that roll is a 20 or 5 sequential 20's. And it's weird.

To be fair, 3.5 and Pathfinder are notoriously bad about things like this in general. The system is just not designed well enough to handle the kind of skill levels that are possible in this game for the very reasons you stated. I pointed out plausible events that could explain a skill failure but that doesn't mean I approve of the concept in general. We are in agreement on that point as well.

[ryu]

I agree with you there. That's why I don't usually do critical success or critical failure on skill checks and I require confirmation rolls on critical failures of attack rolls. The point I was originally trying to convey is that, by nature of many moving parts, Disable Device has a built-in critical failure threshold where failing by too much causes something bad to happen anyway. Reducing that failure rate to 5% is particularly helpful for low- to mid-level adventurers.



To be fair, 3.5 and Pathfinder are notoriously bad about things like this in general. The system is just not designed well enough to handle the kind of skill levels that are possible in this game for the very reasons you stated. I pointed out plausible events that could explain a skill failure but that doesn't mean I approve of the concept in general. We are in agreement on that point as well.

Except it's not decreased to 5%. It's INCREASED to five percent, because you didn't auto fail on 1 before. If you optimized your skill you weren't going to fail. Period.

[ahenobarbi]

I love traps because I love the interaction, but I run them differently than you do:

The player describes where and how they are searching and what they are looking for. Then they roll a search check.
Then I look at their description. If they hit it on the mark they succeed without even looking at their roll. If the trap is within the focus of their description then they get a sizable bonus to their result. If their description excludes the trap but the area they are searching includes the trap, then I just use their result.
Once the player has found a trap, then I describe the trap. The player can ask questions for more/clarifying detail.
Now knowing the trap, the players can either bypass, alter, disable, or destroy the trap. They tell me what they want to do and how they are doing it.
Then I look at their solution. Some solutions do not require a roll (like plugging arrow slits or wedging a trapdoor struck). Other solutions (like installing a bypass or another trigger) would require a disable device check with a bonus. If the players were stumped then an unmodified disable device check will disable the trap.


Oh, and I give everyone Trapfinding but make 5 ranks of Disable Device grant +2 synergy to Search when looking for traps/secret doors/etc.

Uh.. doesn't that lead to players just having to repeat a description of very detailed search over and over again, leading to everyone being very bored?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Another reason critical failures in skills is terrible; they make Taking 20 impossible.

"Oh, you 'rolled a 1' on your first try. Too bad; you broke your own arm, and you can't keep going until you get a regen spell, or you can get it patched up with a cast and wait a month or two, while it heals."

[Calthropstu]

Actually, I love traps. I might be the only one here that does, but when I make dungeons, wizards towers etc, I make some brutal ones.

Traps need to have a purpise though other than just "kill the PCs." Buy some time for preperation, split the party, battlefield control, alert the homeowner, flat out murder... (heh, suspending a room over a pit filled with prismatic spheres... and dropping the room.)

[Pugwampy]

We all like to roll dice , taking a 10 or 20 kills that fun . Rolling dice to me is taking an action and its fun keep rerolling . I never force the rogue to try to salvage a trap he disables . His choice . He could leave it alone or keep fiddling with it .

The only reason people dont like playing rogues in my games is because I make cute little decorative set piece combat encounters . It has nothing to do with my trap rules . Dungeons are fair to all classes but I build castles , and forests and arena,s and thats unfair to certain classes but it looks awesome .

Rolling 20 or 1 in my group means something to us regardless of what reason the D20 was used . I have no problem rewarding a player who rolled a 20 as long as he understands I will do the same if he rolls 1 and that applies to my monsters too . Usually its players who want me to go beyond combat and include fail/success rolls on skills and even range touch spells . If Wheezer da wizard is prepared to burn fingers for a chance to dish out double damage on a touch spell , who am I to object .

If i think a rule is flawed or hinders fun , I toss it out the window . There is only one rule . Having FUN .

Its not hard to be a parrot and memorize flawed rules . Polly gets no cracker for annoying the nice man who does the most work and who was probably aware of said "rule" but changed it in the name of fun or prefers an older rule . The nice man would rather value a helpful Polly when he has no clue of so and so situation .

[Eldariel]

If i think a rule is flawed or hinders fun , I toss it out the window . There is only one rule . Having FUN .

What a vacuous statement. This guideline does not allow you to determine if some rule is good or bad (except in some very obvious cases such as 3.5 Favored Class rules; they're actually bad enough that they're almost universally reviled): fun is subjective. People enjoy different things. People come to games with different expectations.

For instance:
One player really loves mechanics and tinkering with builds and seeing what funkiness can occur within the system. She wants as many sources allowed as possible and loves to build a character and a cohort and a backup character and friends' characters if allowed.

One player really loves immersion - to him, constant danger, character death, logically sound design and believable behavior, not to mention nitty-gritty carrying capacity/volume management, sensible realism-based on-the-fly rulings, and details like multiple long duration abjurations producing a faint glow are essential for enjoying the game.

One just wants to kill some orcs. She doesn't really delve into the gameworld too deep and doesn't relish the mechanics, but loves to fight and kill things, roll dice and is absolutely crazy about critical hits and seeing just how much damage she rolled that time, complete with the DM description of the enemy dismemberment. She doesn't want to lose fights but doesn't really consider it a possibility either; after all, the good guys are expected to win.

One player loves deep roleplaying - complex, multi-dimensional characters, in-depth interaction complete with the heraldry, social hierarchy and etiquette of the setting. She loves reading the history of the various kingdoms and characters of note and crafting her place among the legends of the world. Adventuring is a means to an end; it isn't awfully interesting but the subsequent renown and interaction that follows, that's what she lives for.

Most players score somewhere on all those axis, as well as others; they care more about some aspects and less about others. Everyone tends to be different. Particularly the GM is essential as that tends to influence where the details of the world lie; are they in the characterization, the geography and terrain, the creatures and individuals, the history and ambience, the verisimilitude or elsewhere. Certainly, most DMs will attempt to work all those axes but nothing is ever perfect and more attention is inevitably paid towards their own passion.


Whose fun takes priority? Who do you build the game for? How do you make sure that everyone gets to do what they enjoy? There are many, many motivations and many ways to have fun, many different preferences among the endless sea of players, and many of the desires of the players are conflicting. Yet all of them are there to enjoy themselves and none of them are wrong; everyone's passion is a part of the game, but in what proportion these are offered and how the DM is able to cater to these different sources of enjoyment varies.

[ryu]

Rolling dice isn't the core of D&D. It's the opposite of the core. Saying the dice rolling is the core is like saying the core of reading a book is turning pages or that the core of going to the movies is sitting in a chair. These often necessary things are how you experience the content. They are not, themselves, the content. The content, which is made most clear by the amount of developer resources put into it, is the mechanical rules that make up the system. This includes everything from how spells work, to the stats of various creatures, to managing WBL, to building characters, to combat, to environmental challenges and more. Every game and its grandmother uses D20. The in-built lore isn't exactly that complex or unique. You know what is fairly unique to 3.5? The fact that the system is sprawling, the potential complexity is high, the PCs can most literally anything the NPCs can do, and the skill ceiling is also absurdly high in the best way. Remove any of those aspects and we've stopped talking about 3.5.

[OldTrees1]

Uh.. doesn't that lead to players just having to repeat a description of very detailed search over and over again, leading to everyone being very bored?

I have not found that happening. However I do have 3 mitigating circumstances:
1) I don't use that many traps and their placement is rather logical. As such there is a lot fewer places within an area to search.

2) I use a "traps can be within here" zoning. By default I am communicating there are no traps. However once in a while I tell the players that "this is an area that might have traps". The area might not have any traps (still have to keep the players guessing a bit).

3) There is no penalty for giving a short description. At worst you get the search check as normal. Thus players can self regulate how detailed they want to be based on how detailed they enjoy being.

Now those circumstances might explain my observation, or another factor might be going on, or I might just be lucky up to now, however I have not seen such a problem.


Now that I think about it, I am not sure we are thinking about the same descriptions here. If someone comes to a 4 way corridor and says
"I think there is a pit trap here. I am going to examine the ground for any seams or places that give a bit." then their search check covers searching everything in that area including the ceiling. If it was a standard pit trap (one with seams or give) then they find it automatically. If the trap had anything to do with sending the victim through the floor (block falls from ceiling crashing through fragile floor) or something coming out of the floor, then they get a substantial bonus for being in the right ballpark. For everything else they get their search check as per normal.

[illyahr]

Except it's not decreased to 5%. It's INCREASED to five percent, because you didn't auto fail on 1 before. If you optimized your skill you weren't going to fail. Period.

If you have a +10 modifier and the DC is 20, you critically fail on a 1-4. That's a 20% chance of critical failure. Sure, some people can get a +10 modifier at level 1 if they do it right, but some people don't optimize to that degree.

[LordOfCain]

If you have a +10 modifier and the DC is 20, you critically fail on a 1-4. That's a 20% chance of critical failure. Sure, some people can get a +10 modifier at level 1 if they do it right, but some people don't optimize to that degree.

It would just take a 20 Dex, 4 ranks, and Mwk. thieves' tools. If you took Skill Focus you would just need.... 16 Dex. (Not that Skill Focus is the best feat)

[ComaVision]

2) I use a "traps can be within here" zoning. By default I am communicating there are no traps. However once in a while I tell the players that "this is an area that might have traps". The area might not have any traps (still have to keep the players guessing a bit).

All the power to you if this works for your group but I, personally, would hate that. There may as well just not be traps if the group is always going to be forewarned ooc (even with some false positives).

[OldTrees1]

All the power to you if this works for your group but I, personally, would hate that. There may as well just not be traps if the group is always going to be forewarned ooc (even with some false positives).

Yeah, this whole thread is a huge example of the importance of getting to know your players.

Although don't you already assume the result? Traps tend to be native to only certain habitats (dungeons and lairs typically). I assume every time you enter a dungeon a voice in the back of your head goes "there may or may not be traps here".

[Jay R]

A trap that just a "DC 25 trap" is a bad trap, for the same reason that a encounter that is just a 8 hd monster is a bad monster.

Flavor is the point of any aspect of the game.

One problem with traps is that the 3e rules made it easy to include traps with no flavor.

A good trap is a description, and has a context. A 20 foot long pit in the corridor? No big deal. The same pit right before you encounter a monster you should flee from? Much more interesting problem.

Also, don't let the word "trap" limit your planning. A trap isn't necessarily something that was put there on purpose. If you are exploring a ruined castle, you can't always count on the floor or the ceiling staying where it is. A metal lock could be rusted shut. If you pry that gold paten out of the wall, perhaps the wall collapses on you.

There's a pool in the middle of the forest. No big deal, but if the bank is slippery, you might go in against your will. Old rotten branches of trees come down, especially if two warriors just hit the tree hard in their fight.

[eggynack]

A trap that just a "DC 25 trap" is a bad trap, for the same reason that a encounter that is just a 8 hd monster is a bad monster.

Except an arbitrary 8 HD monster, or, more likely, a monster with a CR of 8, isn't nearly as bad a monster as the trap is a trap. In fact, it can be a pretty good monster. Because that trap is binary, uninterative, and usually single player, while the monster has a lot of possible outcomes, many means of interaction, and involves the whole party. Sure, a monster with context is better, but random encounters can represent a good time in a way that random traps mostly can't. This doesn't really work as an analogy as a result, and it all means that traps really have to be held to a higher standard than monsters.

[Jay R]

Except an arbitrary 8 HD monster, or, more likely, a monster with a CR of 8, isn't nearly as bad a monster as the trap is a trap. In fact, it can be a pretty good monster. Because that trap is binary, uninterative, and usually single player, while the monster has a lot of possible outcomes, many means of interaction, and involves the whole party. Sure, a monster with context is better, but random encounters can represent a good time in a way that random traps mostly can't. This doesn't really work as an analogy as a result, and it all means that traps really have to be held to a higher standard than monsters.

I completely disagree. The trap doesn't have to be held to as high a standard as monsters, because a trap is quickly over.

But I didn't mean a standard random encounter. I meant a generic monster of 8 hd.

DM: You are attacked by a monster. He does 16 points of damage to Fred.
Fred's player: What kind of monster is it?
DM. I don't know. He has 8 hit dice.
Charly's player: What kind of damage does it do?
DM: 2d6 + 10.
Finieous's player: What is he hitting with?
DM. A weapon. Or a natural attack. It doesn't matter.

That's the monster that is equivalent to a bad trap.

And by the way, any trap that is binary, or uninteractive, or only involves one player, is a bad trap. Even a simple pit trap isn't any of those. It allows possibilities of flying over, carefully walking around, falling in for some damage, jumping down safely, pushing enemies in, etc.

[Beheld]

I completely disagree. The trap doesn't have to be held to as high a standard as monsters, because a trap is quickly over.

But I didn't mean a standard random encounter. I meant a generic monster of 8 hd.

DM: You are attacked by a monster. He does 16 points of damage to Fred.
Fred's player: What kind of monster is it?
DM. I don't know. He has 8 hit dice.
Charly's player: What kind of damage does it do?
DM: 2d6 + 10.
Finieous's player: What is he hitting with?
DM. A weapon. Or a natural attack. It doesn't matter.

That's the monster that is equivalent to a bad trap.

And by the way, any trap that is binary, or uninteractive, or only involves one player, is a bad trap. Even a simple pit trap isn't any of those. It allows possibilities of flying over, carefully walking around, falling in for some damage, jumping down safely, pushing enemies in, etc.

Except that no such monster exists, so this amounts to a strawman.

All monsters have a description, a specification on what type of attack them have, most of them have immunities based on their type, they have environment entries, descriptions of their usual motives and tactics, ect.

Also... have you ever played 3e D&D ever? I ask because you keep saying 8HD like that's a thing that matters, but it doesn't.

8HD monsters range the gamut from CR 4 Polar Bears and CR 5 Large Elementals and CR 4 Very Young Green Dragons, all the way to CR 7 Hellcats and CR 9 Zelekauts.

[illyahr]

Except that no such monster exists, so this amounts to a strawman.

All monsters have a description, a specification on what type of attack them have, most of them have immunities based on their type, they have environment entries, descriptions of their usual motives and tactics, ect.

I believe that was the point he was making. You don't do monsters that way so why would you do traps that way?

[ryu]

I believe that was the point he was making. You don't do monsters that way so why would you do traps that way?

The much more important point eggy was making was that you CAN, in point of fact, literally pick a random critter of a random CR and reasonably expect it to be more engaging than a similarly picked trap. This is why you have to hold traps to a significantly higher standard if you use them at all. You can't, at all, get the same amount of engagement out of similar means.

[Jay R]

Your details are correct, but you aren't disproving what I meant.


Except that no such monster exists, so this amounts to a strawman.

Nonsense. The fact that no such monster exists is the point. No such monster should exist. No such trap should exist, either. That's the point of the analogy.


All monsters have a description, a specification on what type of attack them have, most of them have immunities based on their type, they have environment entries, descriptions of their usual motives and tactics, ect.

Correct. My point is that a trap with no description except a CR to roll against is like a monster that does not have any of that, just a certain number of hit points to go through. Such a trap is just a generic trap-finding roll, just as such a monster would be just a set of attack rolls until the hit points went away.


Also... have you ever played 3e D&D ever? I ask because you keep saying 8HD like that's a thing that matters, but it doesn't.

Yes, I have. My point is that a trap that is only a DC challenge with no description is like a monster that has hit points and an attack but no other details.


8HD monsters range the gamut from CR 4 Polar Bears and CR 5 Large Elementals and CR 4 Very Young Green Dragons, all the way to CR 7 Hellcats and CR 9 Zelekauts.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Traps should have that much variation as well.

It's like you went through all the thought of my analogy, only to avoid actually applying it to understanding the point.

[ryu]

Your details are correct, but you aren't disproving what I meant.



Nonsense. The fact that no such monster exists is the point. No such monster should exist. No such trap should exist, either. That's the point of the analogy.



Correct. My point is that a trap with no description except a CR to roll against is like a monster that does not have any of that, just a certain number of hit points to go through. Such a trap is just a generic trap-finding roll, just as such a monster would be just a set of attack rolls until the hit points went away.



Yes, I have. My point is that a trap that is only a DC challenge with no description is like a monster that has hit points and an attack but no other details.



Yes, I'm aware of that. Traps should have that much variation as well.

It's like you went through all the thought of my analogy, only to avoid actually applying it to understanding the point.

The important difference is that you're talking about an idealized version of the game where things are changed and traps are actually a legitimate mechanical thing. We're talking about the game as it is.

[illyahr]

The important difference is that you're talking about an idealized version of the game where things are changed and traps are actually a legitimate mechanical thing. We're talking about the game as it is.

Again, that is the point. By pointing out what traps should be we emphasize the difference. We hate what the game has made traps into instead of what could have been done with them. There are entire supplements dedicated solely to how to make better traps. Grimtooth's has been a staple of trap-making since before I can remember.

[Calthropstu]

Again, that is the point. By pointing out what traps should be we emphasize the difference. We hate what the game has made traps into instead of what could have been done with them. There are entire supplements dedicated solely to how to make better traps. Grimtooth's has been a staple of trap-making since before I can remember.

I am suspicious of your sources.

I suspect entrapment.

[illyahr]

I am suspicious of your sources.

I suspect entrapment.

Sources? Entrapment?

Have you never heard of Grimtooth and his books of traps? The 3.0/3.5 one is called The Wurst of Grimtooth's Traps.

[eggynack]

I completely disagree. The trap doesn't have to be held to as high a standard as monsters, because a trap is quickly over.

But I didn't mean a standard random encounter. I meant a generic monster of 8 hd.

DM: You are attacked by a monster. He does 16 points of damage to Fred.
Fred's player: What kind of monster is it?
DM. I don't know. He has 8 hit dice.
Charly's player: What kind of damage does it do?
DM: 2d6 + 10.
Finieous's player: What is he hitting with?
DM. A weapon. Or a natural attack. It doesn't matter.

That's the monster that is equivalent to a bad trap.

And by the way, any trap that is binary, or uninteractive, or only involves one player, is a bad trap. Even a simple pit trap isn't any of those. It allows possibilities of flying over, carefully walking around, falling in for some damage, jumping down safely, pushing enemies in, etc.
Well, assuming you're talking about reducing generic monsters to the level of generic traps, the things'd still have names, specifically named attacks (meaning claw, or sword), and the general stuff a monster needs to function. That's all stuff that traps have, after all. And, even in that case, the monster is still way more interesting, because the combat system is robust, complicated, and interesting. Plenty of monsters are basically this generic monster, except maybe with a special attack or ability added, and it's not like that's out of keeping with what a generic trap pulled out of a book can do. One of the main things that makes a monster interesting is the stuff you can do to it, rather than the stuff it can do to you. You just can't do as much stuff to a trap.

[DataNinja]

Sources? Entrapment?

Have you never heard of Grimtooth and his books of traps? The 3.0/3.5 one is called The Wurst of Grimtooth's Traps.

I get the feeling that it was a play off of the double meanings of entrapment, given we're talking about traps here. :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

A trap that has the possibility of being interesting on its own is called a construct. All others must have some kind of distraction and/or time pressure added.

[Jay R]

The important difference is that you're talking about an idealized version of the game where things are changed and traps are actually a legitimate mechanical thing. We're talking about the game as it is.

I'm talking about the history of what traps have been for forty years. I agree that the structure of 3e/3.5e, by reducing everything to a single mechanic, made it far too easy to make bad, generic traps.

But you don't have to. You can also make good, specific traps, with details to interact with. That's what I'm recommending.